Behind the Numbers 02.21.08: Mike Mamula

Posted by Chris Widner on 02.22.2008

This week I try to defend the "legacy" of the workout warrior from Boston College.

With the NFL draft around the corner a lot of attention is focused on the scouting combine. This is the time of year when 40-yard dashes, cone drills, vertical leaps, and bench presses become more important than they should. Players have spent months perfecting these skills in hopes of jumping ahead on draft boards around the league. A bad showing at the combine can cause a player to lose a lot of money by dropping down the boards, just as a great showing can catapult a third round player into the first. It's no secret that this isn't an exact science and many teams have made serious mistakes when drafting a player. Lawrence Phillips, Heath Schuler, Tony Mandarich, Ryan Leaf? They were supposed to be Pro Bowl players, you knew that right? Instead they ended up with the worst four-letter word a pro can be tagged with: BUST. Based on their college careers and the talent they displayed, their teams just knew they would be great. But what about Mike Mamula? Why is he known as a bust? He had a great junior year at Boston College, but wasn't it clear that he was undersized? It should have been. By all accounts, he was going to be a third-round player at best, so how did he end up as the 7th overall pick in 1995? A great showing at the combine did it for him.

A great bench press and 4.63 time for the 40-yard dash looks great on paper, so the Eagles traded up to the 7th spot to get Mamula. As it's been pointed out before, the Eagles basically traded Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks to get Mamula. When a team traded 2 future hall-of-fame players for you, it's safe to expect the bust label. Mamula changed the way teams view the combines, although those test still get too much emphasis. So was Mamula really a bust? A bust is a player destined for greatness, a player that is supposed to turn a franchise around. Instead they lead their team to embarrassing records and get cut or traded within a few years. Mamula wasn't that guy, he wasn't a bust. Did anyone say "We got Mamula! We're destined to win the Super Bowl now!" I think it's safe to assume that nobody did, at least not any sane person in Philadelphia.

I must say that when I looked at his numbers, I was somewhat surprised. He's known as a bust and a workout warrior, so I assumed he did nothing on the field. He averaged 42 tackles and 6.5 sacks per year for his career and he even got around to force a few fumbles and deflect a couple of passes each season. Those numbers won't blow you away, but not bad for an undersized defensive end. The real problem was that Philadelphia would not play him at linebacker, a position he was suited for. For the life of me I can't understand why they wouldn't want to try that. It's like the kid trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Defense has changed quite a bit over the last decade and the idea of a defensive end playing some linebacker, and vice-versa, is not forbidden like it seemed to be in 1995. Although I still don't think he'd be a superstar, I think Mamula would be considered a very solid player if he were playing today. He would be a great fit for a 3-4 defense with versatile ends and linebackers.

When you look at the other defensive ends drafted in 1995 you quickly see there wasn't much to choose from. Unfortunately for Mamula, he has a permanent place in history as a workout warrior bust from Boston College. Warren Sapp and Derrick Brooks went to Tampa Bay and Philadelphia got Mamula. Thirteen players from the first round of the 1995 draft made at least one Pro Bowl, but Mamula was not one of them. That's just a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.